Did the Western Allied navies let the Ruskies come this close to their carriers?
I was under the impression that the Russian patrol planes were intrecepted by carrier launched figthers long before they could come this close…
Nothing in international law says they could not get that close in peacetime. On top of that any Soviet air force aircraft could get within 12 miles of a NATO country’s coastline before a shoot down by a NATO aircraft would be legal in international law.
Perhaps you should change the title of this thread as a surface to air missile nor a BOMARC cruise missile hardly qualifies as a “monoplane”.
Perhaps UAV or more accurately cruise missile.
You are correct in the fact that both weapons were cruise missiles, in that they were powered thoughout the length of their flight (unlike most SAM’s of the period, which were rocket powered boost / coast weapons).
As for the Monoplane bit in the title. I’m afriad, your wrong. The thread title is based on a line out of the missile’s technical description Air Publication (AP 118C 0201-1A), a copy of which is declassified and in the archives at RAFM Hendon This document states that the Bloodhound Mark 2 Surface to Air Missile is a ‘Twin Ramjet Powered Monoplane’. Other documents also refer to the weapon as, Configuration: Monoplane moving wing layout with fixed horizontal stabiliser. Directional stability provided by pylons supporting the two power units.
Therefore I would say that the Bloodhound (and the Bomarc) were Monoplanes.
It seems to me that the title was written with tongue in cheek – and they certainly aren’t biplanes!
Quite right Papa Lima. I’ll get round to posting some pictures and tech info in the next few weeks.
is Hunting BL-755…it looks like it
Correct TC – Hunting BL-755 Cluster bomb
Certainly in the RAF a ‘confirmed’ kill is just that, it had to be confirmed by a third party (either another pilot or maybe the Observer Coprps or even an army unit). If there was no confirmation possible it was usually listed as a ‘probable’.
Gun camera on the Claimant’s aircraft helped a lot in this case, an enemy aircraft with a wing missing on it on the film could only be classed as a Kill.
Not sure about a bomber kill, although there were obviously more pairs of eyes to confirm any claim.
and to massively over claim as well, as the USAAF box bomber formations regularly did throughout WW2. Claimed to have shot down 200+ German fighters, Actullay got 20, was a normal figure.
im pretty sure it was when the ruskies sent a bear to Farnborough or fairford, heres another
Fairford 1993 if memory serves. I went on the Saturday and the Bear didn’t fly (Rumour was that the crew was too pissed). Aircraft flew as part of the display on the Sunday.
……or the tornado crew forced the bear down……i wonder if that ever happened for real….
Nope, Russians / Soviets had more sense than to ever do over flights. (it was much simpler, safer and cheaper to let a KGB spy in the government to do the work for them).
ASK 13 Glider of Essex Gliding Club, North Weald – 12 years old, 1979
The calendar in my office is a “Bemrose Flight” calendar and it says it shows this month a B52H – but it’s got 4 big fan engines. I’m a bit of an innocent in this regard as I always thought B52’s had 8 TF33’s?
Please – what gives? I tried googling B52 re-engine and got nothing worthwhile apart from a Boeing “proposal” with an RB211. I’ve tried searching this forum but failed.
By the way, I class B52 as historic rather than current hence OK for this forum as it flew before I was born – and that’s not true of much flying these days. Besides, you’re nice patient people who put up with ignorami like me….
A four engined B-52 is a proposal that Boeing have made on a regular basis, and that the USAF / US Government have rejected on a regular basis, mainly on overall cost grounds.
Ja Worsley: I will be doning both the Tracker, the Tracer and the COD some time in the future. As you noticed i only do US NAVY aircrafts, but should somebody request a print from other airforces, I´ll a profile of any aircraft requested !
BIGVERN1966: I use ver. 11 . I convert the drawing to a bitmap with 300 dpi, then transfer it to photopaint, where i open it with a resolution of 500 dpi and a length of about 50 cm. Then save it as a Tiff file…..so that the way i do it ! What kind of aircrafts do you do ? I love to see and example of your work..could you e-mail me an example ?
Profile Drawer
I’ve done mostly Briitish RFC / RAF / RN Types (about 120 in total along with four French WWI aircraft operated by a RFC Sqn and threee WWII US Types operated by the RAF (Airacobra, Mustang III, Havoc I (Pandora) (P-39C / P-51C/A-20 to the guys on your side of the pond)). The only other US type I’ve done is attached. Profiles were drawn in Coraldraw V6 as a patchwork of colours and exported at 300 DPI at A4 size file was then opened in Photoshop V5 and the rest was done with layers and the other goodies in the package. The Phantom FGR2 (F-4M) was my second attempt at a profile and was done for a Squadron Histroy CD (with about 35 over types) the guy I did them for was my Brother who was running the project and we had 1000 copies produced, sponsered bt BAe Systems (could not sell them due to Copyright restrictions on the British MOD stuff that was on it, the CD were given away at a Sqaudron Airshow in may 2004 and at RIAT). The rest were done for a A1 sized Aircraft of RAF Coltishall Poster, of which I had 1000 printed off and have sold about 500 of locally. Most of the profiles are 30 cm long, due to the export problem I had and the requirements of the size of the fininsh items that they were designed for. (Aircraft on the poster were 1-88 scale). Poster shown below. (I suppose that the Gannet, Sea Hornet, Firefly, Swordfish and Albacore (all RN types) would quaifiy the poster for this thread).

USAF B-29’s of the 372nd Bomb Squadron, 307th Bomb Group, were based at Waddington from July to November 1948. (the Group’s other two Squadrons were based at Marham).
Gollevainen: Exactly how the profiles are done is a long story, but they are only done on computer using Coral Draw and Photoshop.
Gauntlet: Thanks ! Originaly my plans was only to make US NAVY profiles . But if anybody wnat to purchase a non-NAVY drawing, i´ll make one. My plans are to make all of the US NAVY aircraftypes at first (i only do type that where active in the period 1950 to 1980, unless somebody ask me to do others).
Then maybe, i´ll do some USAFs and possibly some RDAFs…Was there something special you would like to see ?Kind regards¨
Webmaster of aircraftprofiles.dk
Very nice profiles, Photoshop is brillant for doing all the shading. What version of Coraldraw do you use? I’ve done a number of profiles using the same method and problem that I’ve run into is that the Coraldraw version I use will not export a bitmap bigger that 4800 pixels, limiting the size of my profiles to A3. How do you produce the prints at A2?
I got rid of the text to the left, and I did wonder about the effect in the cockpit, but it does look real to me.
If you were going to edit a picture to use, you’d use the right type of aircraft wouldn’t you?
Don’t you believe it, one of them (FHM if memory serves) did an article on the AN-225, most of the write up was 10 years out of date. Another FHM article had a piece about a Syrian solider doing pull-ups on the Pitot probe of an RAF Harrier, thus bending it. Thinking that nobody would notice the damage if the Pitot probes on all of the rest of the aircraft on the flight line looked the same he bent the rest to the same angle. The pity is the Magazine never explained what RAF Harriers were doing in Syria in the first place :confused: . (The actual story I heard about in 1982 ;), the place was Cyprus, the man was a Flight Line Mechanic in the RAF and the aircraft were Lightning’s). As a footnote, I’ve met the bloke, he was a line SNCO on the LTF and was still a bit of a nutter 😮 .
I’m told there was some technology exchange in the very early days and allegedly that was used by the US to block Bloodhound 2 exports.
Thermal Batteries and Continuos Rod Warhead were the bits in question. (Rumour has it that the Conrod Warhead was a US idea, that the British actually got to work properly, instead of the other way round (a quote from a Roy Braybrook article I read years ago)). When the Swedish Army went for Hawk (after operating the majority of the limited number of Bloodhound 1’s bought by Sweden (Called the RB-365 in Swedish service)). The US had no problems with the technology transfer to the Swedes with the Bloodhound 2 sale to the Swedish Air force. When Bristol tried to sell the Swiss the Bloodhound 2 (with no Hawk sale along with it or any other major US system bar the search radars, the US government caused all sorts of problems, much to the disgust of the Foreign Office. There are files about it at the NA at Kew.)
I don’t think anybody’s mentioned this. Did you know that when the TU-22 and TU-128 were first seen at a Moscow parade flypast in 1961, NATO thought they were both Bombers and gave them the Codenames Blinder and Beauty. (The Tu128 had the Blinder Codename by the way). After the Tu-128 was found to be an Interceptor, it was renamed Fiddler and the Blinder codename was given to the Tu-22 (Rumour has it that the Tu-22 name change was done by NATO thanks to the yanks complaining that nothing communist could ever be called beautiful).
So the first man to achieve powered flight in the British Isles and the holder of the ninth Royal Aero Club pilot’s certificate issued wasn’t technically a pilot?
Please elaborate.
If I do remember correctly, Cody’s first flight in Army Aeroplane No 1 can not technically be called a successful first solo flight 😉 because it ended with the aircraft embedded in a tree 😮 . 😡 In fact the Times the following day headlined the event with the fact that it had crashed, not the fact that a British built aircraft had actually flown for the first time. 😡
The number of mission markings on the lanc should help, seems to be a lot.